<p>The IRS is a really eye opening example of a centrally run organization which affects all of our lives. Won’t go into recent history due to TOS constraints. But just like the ACA, those employees answer the phones or chats or looking at you face to face have no liability for dispersing wrong or inaccurate information.</p>
<p>Bluebayou, such as the rush of credit card companies to South Dakota because it was one of the few states which didn’t have a usury law. Great for Citibank et al, not so great for consumers. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Got it, thanks. (Personally, I’m not a fan of credit cards, so I really don’t care about their % rates.) Regardless, not sure its a valid example since health care is a ‘right’ (at least according to many on cc), while credit cards are just a convenience.</p>
<p>And, as I posted previously, the floor or ‘bottom’ is ACA.</p>
<p>I’m no fan of the IRS, either, dietz. But some I know will take notes on their conversations, with whom, when and what was the gist. Then errors or misinfo can be attributed- and some relief gotten. Which I bring up because your friends, had they done this, would have their defense blocked out for their insurance misunderstanding. No guarantees from that, but a good idea. </p>
<p>Someone on another forum posted this link to an Arkansas newspaper: <a href=“Arkansas hospital survey: since enactment of private option, ER visits and number of uninsured patients down - Arkansas Times”>http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2014/05/15/arkansas-hospital-survey-since-enactment-of-private-option-er-visits-and-number-of-uninsured-patients-down</a></p>
<p>In summary: Arkansas ER visits are down slightly, but of those visits, the number of uninsured is down by 24%. The number of those admitted to the hospital who are uninsured is down 30%. The author makes the point that this will save rural hospitals in Arkansas, which in turn helps the local economy by saving jobs.</p>
<p>^^what is even more telling from the article is the quotes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The private option is only a portion of the $$ that the feds are expected to take.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The comparison is valid in that it shows how large for-profit corporations behave. When offered a chance to lower costs, that’s exactly what they’ll do. Why wouldn’t they?</p>
<p>It’s true that there’s a bottom, but some states have more than the minimum. If we went to selling across state lines, how long do you think it would be before Anthem of California closed up shop and moved to, say, Texas? And all of the extra protections that Californians now have would go poof.</p>
<p>Also, importantly, I daresay that Texas isn’t quite as stringent about enforcement as California is. [Given</a> the regularity with which Anthem of California breaks the law](<a href=“http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/23/business/la-fi-anthem-claims23-2010feb23]Given”>Anthem Blue Cross broke law more than 700 times, official says), my guess is that they’d find it very attractive to move to such a state. </p>
<p><a href=“Report: Obamacare contractors paid to do nothing - CBS News”>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-obamacare-contractors-paid-to-do-nothing/</a></p>
<p>LOL!</p>
<p>^^^ Now now, that depends on your definition of ‘nothing’…really, check your privilege B-) </p>
<p>And remember those who thought the VA was a model for wonderful government run healthcare?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please, do tell what all those 'extra protections" are? (besides mandatory coverage for acupuncture)</p>
<p>sudsidies incorrect for 1 mill…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/federal-health-care-subsidies-may-be-too-high-or-too-low-for-more-than-1-million-americans/2014/05/16/8f544992-dd14-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/federal-health-care-subsidies-may-be-too-high-or-too-low-for-more-than-1-million-americans/2014/05/16/8f544992-dd14-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html</a></p>
<p>And they’re going to want that money back.</p>
<p>They may want it back…but what system is in place to first identify the overpayment and then collect the funds. Remember, the subsidized are ‘poor’.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I submit that you assume too much. :)</p>
<p>The problem is that the govt and its political supporters are in total denial and the opposition is unwilling to help them find solutions to fix the system (if it can be fixed?) until they admit that the law is flawed. Stalemate!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The IRS. The discrepancies will be reconciled on tax forms. Note that if a person claims to be on the lower end of the eligibility (that is, they get big subsidies) either they ARE on the lower end and their subsidies are correct, or they are not on the lower end and they most likely will be filing taxes.</p>
<p>The tax filer would need to have a refund coming their way from which the IRS could withhold the over payment. Why would you assume that the subsidies on the lower end would be correct? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To rephrase…the part of the system which is tasked with catching the errors is …um…vapor ware!</p>
<p>Oh dear, that missing back end rears it’s ugly ‘head’.
</p>
<p>Catch us if you can…good grief…maybe we could put the NSA listeners on the Healthcare.gov phones.</p>
<p>GP is getting his wish. Mr. Fang has decided to retire next month, so we will be on the individual market either right away, if that seems to be better, or in a year and a half when COBRA runs out.</p>
<p>I wanted to return to the idea of selling insurance across state lines. </p>
<p>In this thread, we’ve had a number of discussions about issues where some or all of us think insurers need at the very least oversight from regulators, and perhaps increased state regulations. Most of us think that insurers should be forced to be honest and open about their provider lists. Dietz further believes that regulations involving EPOs should be changed. Many of us believe that insurer networks should be monitored for adequacy, and that insurers should be forced to add providers to inadequate networks.</p>
<p>These tasks are done, now, at the state level. In the case of California, they’re overseen by the Department of Insurance, which is headed by an elected official. In other states, they might be overseen by elected officials or people appointed by elected officials.</p>
<p>If insurance were sold across state lines, then the policy I buy in California might be overseen by someone in North Dakota. I expect that a California elected official is going to be a lot more responsive to concerns of California consumers than some guy in Bismarck. The dude in Bismarck doesn’t care about me; he just wants to keep insurers happy so they stay headquartered in his state. The dude in Sacramento can get thrown out of office if he ignores voters’ concerns.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sheer speculation, bordering on a straw man argument. If there is in fact a market for the type of insurance that you would prefer CF, a company instate will offer it.</p>